Adam Wilson wrote:
> Justin B Rye <email@example.com> wrote:
>>> + (keyboard), <replaceable>locales</replaceable> (localisation).</para></glossdef>
>> Is this package using en_GB or en_US? Elsewhere it seemed to be
>> standardising on -izing...
In fact I'm not sure what kind of English it means "refcard-en-a4.pdf"
to be in, but it's the same content as "refcard-en-lt.pdf", and who's
going to want "letter size" in en-GB?
> It could be either, depending on the style manual being followed.
> The Oxford Dictionary is panegyric on -ize endings, even though -ise
> is more commonly used in British English.
As I mentioned on this list not long ago, when I was a kid The Times
used -ize, and my English teachers were happy with either style. But
the prevailing standard has drifted over the past few decades, to the
point where even the University of Oxford now uses -ise in its press
English is unlike most major modern languages in having no official
orthography - it's just a matter of following the herd. As a result
we've ended up in the bizarre position of having a breakaway-faction
sub-locale which is ignored by the entire publishing industry even
though it's backed by knock-down arguments and recommended by the
single most prestigious dictionary in existence.
We *could* use "OED spellings" in documentation... but that would
surprise all the users who were expecting en-GB rather than
en-GB-oxendict. And if I didn't care about following the majority,
what's the justification for (e.g.) spelling "could" with an "L"? I
might as well use my own personal favourite spelling-reform scheme.
JBR with qualifications in linguistics, experience as a Debian
sysadmin, and probably no clue about this particular package